www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ethics Question-Emergency Contraception

Dcn John,

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Yes, it is "left alone" before it implants, but would you consider a helpless newborn not human because it would die if left alone? An infant needs another person for its survival, especially young ones. But we don't practice infanticide, do we?

Even if a fertilized ovum has not implanted itself in the mother's uterus, it has its own unique and single 'identity' known only to itself mapped out from its own genetics formula. It is NOT its mother and it is NOT its father. Nor is it merely protoplasmic rubbish.

No man/woman is an island. Even as adults we 'need' others. We are naturally social beings.

The Psalmist wrote in Psalm 22:9, "Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother's breasts."

Trust. It is upon a mother's breast whom infants learn trust. They trust that their mothers won't let them die. They trust that their mothers feed them, give them a home, and protect them. They are dependant upon their mothers for their very lives. They are united thru trust. A mother can still terminate their lives by simply withholding their source of food, both before birth and after birth.

Isaiah the Prophet writes, "Can a woman forget her nursing child And have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you."

Again, in Psalm 139:13, we read, "You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb."

Though the Psalmist didn't have your knowledge as a 21st Century physician, can we at least ask when the "knitting" began? Did it begin during implantation? after implantation? or before implantation when the sperm entered the egg at fertilization? The knitting continues for almost six days before implantation in the uterus. A lot happens in six days. My wife can "knit" a lot of afghan in six days.

In Ecclesiastes 11:5, we have, "Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things."

When do bones form in the womb? When does an embryo's gentials form? It is a process, a continuum. When does that process begin? Are we (ever) there yet?

Again, I think you are personally mistaken. If life begins at implantation, then you also have to profess the corollary, that there is no life between the moment of fertilization and implantation, that the power didn't turn on until this dead, non-living entity implanted itself in its mother's womb. Life does not occur spontaneously. The womb/uterus cannot produce life on its own; it can only nurture life. It should be a safe-haven for what is already alive.

I know rape is a difficult issue as well as any conceptions resulting from it. But my reply is only in answer to your bold statement that life begins at implantation.

God bless!
Cantor Joe Thur

In the case of the conception, who is being punished?

Joe

Joe,

I would have to add, it is the Teaching of the Catholic Church that "One may not do evil so that good may result from it."

Here is the revelant paragraph from the CCC.

1756. "It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. "

The use of the "morning after pill" is not being used as a contraceptive, it is an abortifacient.

The definitions from the Merriam-Webster Dictonary are:

contraceptive: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation

abortifacient: an agent (as a drug) that induces abortion

As the "morning after pill" is given after the sex act takes place, it can not prevent conception. It is used to cause an abortion.

Abortion is murder, it is never right.


David

David,

I am just shocked at the suggestion that life begins at implantation and not fertilization. This is absurd. It is a new angle down the slippery slope.

Joe

Like you Joe , I have also always been of the impression that life begins at ferilisation - even before I was received into the Catholic Church. In very simple terms it has to be - cells divide and multiply --- surely that is life ?

When I taught about contraception in School and I explained what EC did [ and for that matter what an IUD did] a student would always shout at me and tell me that both were abortifacients. Now those were 16/17 yr old kids.

Sorry - Life begins at implantation - NO WAY

Anhelyna

Anhelyna,

I believe we found the crack to Humanae Vitae with the 'implantation' theory. I am surprised at the little response that this got. Down the slippery slope we go!

Joe

Joe ,

I have to say I really do not understand where this 'implantation is the start of life ' thing came from.

I do know that over here Fertilisation is the start [ at least in NFP Circles ]

Perhaps our revered Clergy could come back in at this stage and enlighten us poor mortals.

After all - what do I frequently say - let the education .........

Anhelyna

Anhelyna,

That is where the 'implantation' theory started.

Joe

How very true Joe

But could they please explain it

Calling Petrus

...... Look at the mess you have got some of us into - please help us understand what you have said and then look at it in the light of what we have always understood .

Anhelyna

You are a deacon. You lost that distinction the day you were ordained. You are preaching heresy and you should be disciplined. I say this not out of spite but out of charity that your conscience may be reformed according to the teaching of the Church.

anastasios

Does "heresy" cover moral/biological questions? I thought heresy had to do with theological questions about who God is and what flows from it, not about biology.

Anastasios,

I think you owe Fr. Deacon John an apology. One, he is not preaching. Two, he is not dealing with theology but biology and the ramifications it may have for theology, so he cannot be accused of heresy. Three, in such an area one may have a private opinion that differs from that of the Magesterium as long as one does not publicly and officially oppose it.

The Church is wise in taking caution and demanding nothing be done once fertilization/conception happens. However, they are many unresolved issues of which Deacon John raises only one. The Church teaches that souls do not divide or unite but a fertilized egg or eggs may do just this. How do we reconcile this with the above teaching. The issue comes down to when does God ensoul a person. The Church to my knowledge does not actually teach when it occurs but states it does not know and because it does not know, life must respected from the moment of conception. While we must uphold the Church's teaching, it is not heresy to review our understandings as scientific evidence sheds new light, otherwise one would be a heretic for believeing the earth is round and rotates around the sun.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

AMDG

Lemko, heresy does cover moral questions. It covers practical questions as well as speculative ones.

Anhelyna, to help you out of your uncertainty, the CDF authoritatively taught in the early 1990's that we must hold that human life is present from the moment of conception.

Petrus, you are on very dangerous ground. Very dangerous. Your arguments on this thread have been irresponsible at best. We cannot justify using EC as "the result of an immoral action." Using EC is a choice on the part of a rational agent; it is not a "result" in Moral Theology terms.

It seems that certain bishops in New York have (not for the first time) led their flock astray. I would not be surprised, however, if this whole "permission for the use of emergency contraception" were just the product of an authority-less subcommittee that somehow got media attention. That has happened before (e.g. "Always Our Children," "Environment & Art in Catholic Worship," and the document last year about not evangelizing Jews).

We are living in dreadful times and must distinguish the authentic voice of the Magisterium from the masquerades.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

AMDG

Subdeacon Lance posted while I was typing.

With all due respect for both Sbdcn Lance and Fr Dcn John, one must adhere to judgments of the Magisterium with "religious submission of mind & will" (LG) and conform one's actions to the Magisterium's judgment. Thus, even if you want to argue that the Magisterial teaching here has not been promulgated with infallible force, you could not justify acting in a manner contrary to the Church.

Subdeacon Lance, it is possible to commit heresy with respect to "biology," and the Magisterium NEVER taught that the Earth was flat or that the sun went around it. The infamous Galileo trial is one of the most misunderstood episodes in Church history. What so many people fail to realize is that his prime offence was not scientific but theological; he put the inerrancy of Scripture in doubt. The Church never bound the faithful to believe in a geocentric universe; she merely had to reconcile the heliocentric model with Scripture before it could be taught in Church-sponsered schools.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad,

And with all due respect here, will you please quit talking down to us like we need to be reminded that we are "Catholics after all?"

If all Latin Catholics followed their Church's teaching on abortion, it would really cut down on those terrible acts say, in Catholic Quebec, for one place.

Now that I got that off my chest . . .

How are you today?

"Heresy" is formally tied to matters of faith, as you know.

In matters biological, there is a qualitative difference in what is being committed. The penalties are the same e.g. a person is excommunicated for having an abortion, just as much as for denying the Trinity etc.

But, certainly, it all comes down to whether we submit to the Church's teaching on faith and morals.

Heresy is ultimately the sin of pride in saying otherwise.

Can you show how Subdeacon Lance's summary of the situation is in any way at variance with the Church's teaching on this subject?

I would worry about some of your own Latin bishops, if I were you, you know . . .

Pax Vobiscum!

Alex